IN THE CASE OF:  	  

		BOARD DATE:  14 April 2015	  

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140014533 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge to honorable.

2.  He states, in effect, at the time of his discharge he was considered a drug rehabilitation failure due to alcohol abuse.  He was in a 30-day treatment program and he was discharged from the military because he continued to be dependent on alcohol.  However, he has been alcohol-free for the past 20 years and he has achieved many accomplishments.  He explains that in 1993 he spent 3 months in treatment and after graduation he became a house manager/substance abuse counselor for the treatment center.  He has taken college courses and he has attended workshops to better himself.  He has become a certified substance abuse counselor.  He continues by expounding on his achievements since his discharge from the military.  He offers that he fully understands alcohol is his down-fall and there is no cure.  He knows the only way to succeed in life is to educate himself in substance abuse which is what he is doing.

3.  The applicant provides:

* Self-authored statement
* Résumé
* Three Certificates of Achievement
* General Educational Development (GED) certificate, dated 18 May 2005
* Six Certificates of Completion
* Certificate of Appreciation
* Certification of Master Training, dated 17 April 2003
* Three Certificates of Training
* Five Certificates of Attendance
* Two Certificates of Participation
* Advanced Casino Security Workshop II certificate, dated 6 March 2004
* Certificate of Award, dated 22 November 1996
* New Day Treatment Center certificate, dated 24 August 1993
* Center for Domestic Preparedness certificate, dated 28 November 2007
* Western Michigan University certificate, dated 27 January 1995
* Western Michigan University letters, dated 7 June and 12 December 1994

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  On 30 December 1971, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.  He was discharged on 1 November 1973, for immediate reenlistment which was accomplished the following day.  

3.  On 20 September 1983, while in the rank/grade of staff sergeant, the applicant received a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) for receiving a civilian conviction on 9 August 1983, for driving under the influence.  The GOMOR was placed in his temporary Military Personnel Records Jacket.

4.  Medical Record Report, dated 7 May 1984, stated the applicant was referred to the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP), Fort Gordon, GA.  The applicant was admitted to Ward 24C, in May 1984, and entered into the treatment modalities available.  He conveyed sincere motivation to undergo the rehabilitation program, if only to continue with his military career.

   a.  On 18 June 1984, the ADAPCP physician reported the applicant's history of present illness.  He stated the applicant was driving while intoxicated (DWI) in August 1983, after which he was enrolled in Track I of the ADAPCP in September 1983.  He completed the course within three weeks without difficulty. However, while stationed in Honduras in October 1983, the applicant received an alcohol related Article 15.  In March 1984, he had another DWI.  He continued to drink until 29 April 1984, and due to increasing family problems and alcohol he self-referred to ADAPCP at Fort Campbell, KY on 2 May 1984. 
   
   b.  He was diagnosed with alcohol dependency, continuous, manifested by greater than 1 year history of daily consumption of alcohol at a rate of two six packs per day with associated blackouts; inability to cut down or discontinue use with legal complications, marital complications; and increased tolerance.  The physician noted that there was no impairment for further military duty or social and industrial adaptability if the applicant maintains sobriety.  
   
   c.  On 20 December 1984, the clinical director stated the applicant entered the Post Alcohol and Drug Rehabilitation Program on 1 May 1984, as a result of a second offense of DWI in April 1984.  She said he had a previous offense for which he was enrolled in the ADAPCP Track I (DWI school only) in August 1983. At the last interview, a decision was made to enter him in the Track II outpatient program immediately and to begin arrangements for a Track III residential program bed space as soon as possible.  He completed the course on 22 June 1984.
   
   d.  Upon his return to Fort Campbell, he was enrolled in Track III.  In November 1984, his 180-day progress report revealed satisfactory conduct and he continued to participate in group sessions with his spouse, but his attitude continued to deteriorate.  He became withdrawn and argumentative.  However, efforts to deal with this appeared to be working.  
   
   e.  On 19 December 1984, the applicant's unit first sergeant contacted the counselor, requesting the appropriate letter of documentation of service.  He explained that the applicant had received another DWI on Sunday of the previous weekend.  The incident prompted the battery commander to declare the applicant a rehabilitation failure and to initiate separation action under the appropriate chapter.
   
5.  On 7 January 1985, his battery commander formally notified him of his intent to initiate separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 9 (Abuse of Alcohol or Other Drugs).  Specifically, he stated the applicant was involved in three DWI offenses since August 1983, the most recent one occurred on 17 December 1984, where he was also charged with leaving the scene of an accident.


6.  On 7 January 1985, the applicant acknowledged he had been advised by consulting counsel of the basis for the contemplated action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, and the rights available to him and of the effects of any action taken by him in waiving his rights.  He also:

* waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board
* waived personal appearance before an administrative board
* elected not to submit statements in his own behalf
* acknowledged he understood that he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received a general discharge 
 
7.  On 8 January 1985, the separation authority approved the recommendation to discharge the applicant and directed that he receive a General Discharge Certificate. 

8.  On 18 January 1985, he was discharged accordingly.  His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, Alcohol Abuse - Rehabilitation Failure.  His service was characterized as under honorable conditions.  This form also shows he was credited with completing 11 years,
2 months, and 2 days of active service this period.

9.  There is no indication he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

10.  The applicant provided numerous certificates that show since his discharge from the Army in 1985 he has completed his GED, alcohol and dependency courses, numerous college and training courses, and participated in several workshops.  

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  

	a.  Chapter 9 contains the authority and outlines the procedures for discharging Soldiers because of alcohol or other drug abuse.  A member who has been referred to the ADAPCP for alcohol/drug abuse may be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program if there is a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical.  Initiation of separation proceedings is required for Soldiers designated as alcohol/drug rehabilitation failures.  The service of Soldiers discharged under this chapter will be characterized as honorable or general under honorable conditions unless the Soldier is in entry-level status and an uncharacterized description of service is required.  
	b.  Paragraph 3-7a provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant argues, in effect, that his discharge should be upgraded because he was an alcoholic and he has since turned his life around.  The fact that the applicant has stopped drinking, graduated from a drug rehabilitation program, has been a good citizen, and in recovery for more than 20 years is commendable.  However, good post-service conduct alone is not a basis for upgrading his discharge.

2.  The record shows the battery commander declared the applicant a rehabilitation failure and initiated separation action under chapter 9, after his third DWI.  All requirements of law and regulation were met, and his rights were fully protected throughout his discharge processing.  

3.  Once he had been placed in the ADAPCP, he was obligated to meet program requirements.  His failure to do so constituted a failure to meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel which warranted a general discharge.  There is no evidence of mitigating factors that would support changing that decision now.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient basis upon which to grant the requested relief.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____X___  ____X___  ____X___ DENY APPLICATION




BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.



      __________X____________
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140014533



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140014533



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1